Good idea for a thread i think actually. I did come across an interesting link today, dealing with the idea of landmarks in the middle of other urban functions, like urban housing etc.
Rarely do football stadiums look or function like baseball parks. Football does not have a tradition and history as deep as baseballâ€™s. Football stadiums are bigger, they generate more automobile traffic on game days, and the team plays there only a few days a year (whereas major-league baseball teams play at least 81 homes games a year). Since football stadiums sit empty most of the time and generally have mammoth parking requirements, they donâ€™t make promising urban building blocks.
Eisenmanâ€™s design for the Arizona Cardinals, though praised in The Times, is downright anti-urban â€” surrounded by parking lots. Such big, isolated structures naturally tend to be designed as â€œobject buildingsâ€ or â€œiconsâ€ rather than as contributors to lively, mixed-use urban districts. Photographers conspire with the architects, the team owners, and whatever companies bought the stadium naming rights to show how dramatic these venues look like from the air, as opposed to documenting how they look from the poor pedestrianâ€™s perspective. â€œTheyâ€™re designed for the blimp shot,â€ Sandy Sorlien, a Philadelphia photographer, complained on the Tradarch e-mail discussion list affiliated with the Institute for Traditional Architecture. Not uncommonly, architectural writers glorify such stadiums if they look novel and striking, even though their design and siting are unneighborly.